Death penalty

[Wilber]

What DOES bother me is we don't seem to get EITHER! No capital punishment, and life often doesn't mean anywhere near life at all. First class murder can mean less than 15 years. Often the charge is reduced to second class or manslaughter in order to better ensure a conviction. So the murderer can serve what seems to be an inappropriately short sentence.

I wish Canada would make up its mind!

I agree there are definite problems with our sentencing and parole system but bringing in the death penalty will mean even more reduced sentences because of the reluctance to put people to death. The burden of proof for first degree is already so high that crown is already reluctant to charge people for this crime and that is why it is reduced to second degree or manslaughter so often. Throw in the death penalty and there will be even fewer charges and convictions.

[guyser]

Be patient, Saipan. A few of our posters will no doubt be jumping in very soon to explain to us how natives have such a perfect society that they are entitled to a different sentence than any other Canadian.

I would expect better from you WB.

Saipan wants to mock the sentences, but no link to see if in fact what he says is true, or even if it ever happened. He plays loose with any fact, and when you show him the data , he changes the question/conditions after the fact.He is a troll of the worst kind.

He did that v ery thing on this thread when shown the data about rural vs urban crime. He says, once it was posted. "included Indian land...crime very bad" as if that makes up for the fact he was embarassed , once again.

Yea yea.... suppose I excluded data from Sherbourne area , Jane and Finch area< I didnt .Data for the country is data....not exclusive of anything.

I suspect that one of the references is to a woman in Calgary, a wealthy woman , who got fed up with her abusive husband and shot him.

No links, so who knows. COuld well be true, but facts are not present.

Edited February 2, 2011 by guyser

[Saipan]

I agree there are definite problems with our sentencing and parole system but bringing in the death penalty will mean even more reduced sentences because of the reluctance to put people to death.

That doesn't make any sense. If someone gets 10 years for robery instead 2 years it has absolutely nothing to do with capital punishment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure they do but not just convicted murderers. My claim that capital punishment doesn't lower murder rates does pass muster.

It does for the perp...he/she will not re-offend once they are deceased.

In this case we use that logic to give the state the legal right to put people to death, nothing more. At the other end of the scale we don't sanction the execution of prisoners of war even though they may have killed one of our own and might again while incarcerated or escape. It has nothing to do with any conception-birth-life-death continuum.

Prisoners of war are subject to a completely different (if not arbitrary) protocol. They could just as easily have been legally "executed" in their capacity as armed combatants. So it is not the "state sanctioned" killing that is at issue, but killing itself?

[Saipan]

At the other end of the scale we don't sanction the execution of prisoners of war even though they may have killed one of our own

Nothing to do with civil justice. The enemy "kill one of our own" under the rules of war (se Geneva Convention) Not murder during robery or whatever.

As for POW, Khadr is NOT one of those, as many mistakenly think. He could have been shot right there and save us lot of money.

[segnosaur]

Well, is it right for you to say "I think someone who commits a crime should be arrested and incarcerated"? After all, that's really just legalized kidnapping and hostage taking. Or what about applying a fine? That's really just a type of legalized theft.

Yes, death is a little more final than incarceration (and due to the risk of executing an innocent person I'm not pushing for the death penalty to be reinstated), but any sort of punishment will affect convicted people, in ways that might be cruel if done for other reasons.

Neither will putting them in jail, or fining them. Yet we still do that.

The obvious difference being it is not necessary to kill someone to protect society from their actions.

And in some cases, we jail people not because its necessary to "protect society", but because sentencing someone to jail is seen as "adequate punishment".

Consider Bernie Maddow... Bilked billions of dollars out of people in a ponzi scheme. If the only consideration was the protection of society from further harm, then jail probably wouldn't be necessary. (House arrest would probably suffice). However, I believe that the scale of his crimes warranted incarceration as adequate punishment.

Whether death us a little more final than incarceration is a matter of opinion. Your opinion might change if it was your death in question.

Ummm... not sure what your point was here.

I was pointing out that death is more final than incarceration. Not sure if you were trying to disagree, or whether you simply misread what I wrote.

Arresting them, putting them in jail or fining them rests on the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution that is applicable to all criminal sentences. If you kill them, you cannot apply those principles to any effect.

You are, of course, assuming that those principles are the only principles that we need to consider when we sentence someone to jail. The concept of justice (of ensuring proper punishment is administered for a particular crime) should also be considered. And no, I'm not suggesting "an eye for an eye"... etc. If we did have the death penalty (not that I'm suggesting we should; I think I've made it completely clear that the risk of executing an innocent person is a valid argument against it), I would want it reserved for only those convicted of extreme crimes (e.g. multiple murders, or ones with exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of torture).

In fact, your "principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution" wouldn't necessarily apply in this case. For those convicted of (for example) multiple murders, they would likely never be released into society, so they'd never have the chance for restitution. And rehabilitation/redemption is irrelevant, since the individual would never be released. This is of course assuming it were even possible to rehabilitate someone like Bundy or Bernardo.

Edited February 3, 2011 by segnosaur

[Wilber]

And in some cases, we jail people not because its necessary to "protect society", but because sentencing someone to jail is seen as "adequate punishment".

Consider Bernie Maddow... Bilked billions of dollars out of people in a ponzi scheme. If the only consideration was the protection of society from further harm, then jail probably wouldn't be necessary. (House arrest would probably suffice). However, I believe that the scale of his crimes warranted incarceration as adequate punishment.

The only consideration is not the protection of society, punishment is part of it. I'm just saying that as long as a person is incarcerated, they are no threat to society so capital punishment is just that, punishment, not the protection of society. If that's what people want, so be it but don't try and sugar coat it. For whatever reason it is imposed, an execution is premeditated murder that is state sanctioned.

I was pointing out that death is more final than incarceration. Not sure if you were trying to disagree, or whether you simply misread what I wrote.

I believe you said "a little more final". Just pointing out that how little is a matter of perspective.

[Wilber]

Prisoners of war are subject to a completely different (if not arbitrary) protocol. They could just as easily have been legally "executed" in their capacity as armed combatants. So it is not the "state sanctioned" killing that is at issue, but killing itself?

Just as arbitrary. Do I have to tell you there is a difference between killing someone who is shooting at you and killing a defenseless prisoner whether a criminal or combatant? In one case we maintain that we don't kill prisoners of war even though they may still present a threat. In the other we maintain we need to kill criminal prisoners because they may still present a threat. The decision is based on our perceived opinion of morality of their actions, not the need to defend ourselves from prisoners. It's totally arbitrary.

The issue is whether merely passing a law makes it OK for the state to take a life. Should the state have the power of life and death over its citizens? I find it odd that Americans who profess to be the champions of personal freedom are one of the most likely peoples to grant that power.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just as arbitrary. Do I have to tell you there is a difference between killing someone who is shooting at you and killing a defenseless prisoner whether a criminal or combatant?

Yes, because many combatants (and non-combatants) are killed while not "shooting at" anyone.

In one case we maintain that we don't kill prisoners of war even though they may still present a threat. In the other we maintain we need to kill criminal prisoners because they may still present a threat. The decision is based on our perceived opinion of morality of their actions, not the need to defend ourselves from prisoners. It's totally arbitrary.

We can kill both after legal proceedings with proper jurisdiction. My purpose with this example is to divorce any notion about killing per se from the circumstances of condemned prisoners.

The issue is whether merely passing a law makes it OK for the state to take a life. Should the state have the power of life and death over its citizens? I find it odd that Americans who profess to be the champions of personal freedom are one of the most likely peoples to grant that power.

America has never championed personal freedoms for convicted murderers, traitors, etc. The state does have the power of life and death over its citizens according to laws enacted by citizen representatives within the constraints of the constitution.

Edited February 3, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Saipan]

Do I have to tell you there is a difference between killing someone who is shooting at you and killing a defenseless prisoner whether a criminal or combatant? In one case we maintain that we don't kill prisoners of war even though they may still present a threat. In the other we maintain we need to kill criminal prisoners because they may still present a threat.

You're still confusing soldiers with criminals. Read Geneva Convetion.

[Wilber]

Yes, because many combatants (and non-combatants) are killed while not "shooting at" anyone.

True but they are not put up against a wall and executed. At least not by our two countries. We know that in Canada because we just had an officer convicted and drummed out of the service for mercy killing a terminally wounded Taliban.

We can kill both after legal proceedings with proper jurisdiction. My purpose with this example is to divorce any notion about killing per se from the circumstances of condemned prisoners.

We can but should we? Does making a law make something right in anything other than a legal sense? Bad laws do not make some things right, only legal.

America has never championed personal freedoms for convicted murderers, traitors, etc. The state does have the power of life and death over its citizens according to laws enacted by citizen representatives within the constraints of the constitution.

That is how most of the civilized world has abandoned capital punishment, it doesn't believe the state should have that kind of power.

[dre]

Same here. But in my little town every household have some firearms. Only a complete moron would try home invasion here.

Armed residenced and premises get robbed all the time.

[Wild Bill]

I would expect better from you WB.

Saipan wants to mock the sentences, but no link to see if in fact what he says is true, or even if it ever happened. He plays loose with any fact, and when you show him the data , he changes the question/conditions after the fact.He is a troll of the worst kind.

He did that v ery thing on this thread when shown the data about rural vs urban crime. He says, once it was posted. "included Indian land...crime very bad" as if that makes up for the fact he was embarassed , once again.

Yea yea.... suppose I excluded data from Sherbourne area , Jane and Finch area< I didnt .Data for the country is data....not exclusive of anything.

I suspect that one of the references is to a woman in Calgary, a wealthy woman , who got fed up with her abusive husband and shot him.

No links, so who knows. COuld well be true, but facts are not present.

Guyser, my reply had nothing to do with Saipan being a troll. I merely made a prediction based on my experience with some posters in the threads having to do with native rights, particularly with the Caledonia protest.

I absolutely believe that my predictions would prove accurate, that's why I made them in advance to "head them off at the pass", as it were.

You yourself were not considered a target in any way. I just wanted to defang some more trolls before they showed up!

[bush_cheney2004]

True but they are not put up against a wall and executed. At least not by our two countries. We know that in Canada because we just had an officer convicted and drummed out of the service for mercy killing a terminally wounded Taliban.

OK, but they are just as dead. So state sponsored killing of people in general is not the great taboo after all. I'm just narrowing the framework and context for/from the idea capital punishment.

We can but should we? Does making a law make something right in anything other than a legal sense? Bad laws do not make some things right, only legal.

As you know by now, I do not favor one morality over another, because it is so subjective. The law (and all its shortcomings) is nevertheless the current method for determining guilt and punishment. It need not be discontinuous just because the punishment is death.

That is how most of the civilized world has abandoned capital punishment, it doesn't believe the state should have that kind of power.

Correct...the civilized world has also decided that women can abort viable fetuses.

[Wilber]

You're still confusing soldiers with criminals. Read Geneva Convetion.

The Geneva Convention is just another law passed by humans, it isn't a scroll handed down from God. It requires that we subscribe to a certain moral code that requires adherence to the Convention even if our opponents do not. We don't execute Taliban and Al Queda prisoners even though we know the chances of any of our guys of surviving capture by them is not good at all. We didn't execute Japanese prisoners during WW2 even though their treatment of our people was barbaric.

Maybe our governments should be required to adhere by the Geneva Convention regarding our domestic prisoners.

[bush_cheney2004]

We didn't execute Japanese prisoners during WW2 even though their treatment of our people was barbaric.

Errr...yes "we" did...convicted Japanese "war criminals" were so executed after the war.

Maybe our governments should be required to adhere by the Geneva Convention regarding our domestic prisoners.

That would pose a jurisdiction problem.

[Wilber]

OK, but they are just as dead. So state sponsored killing of people in general is not the great taboo after all. I'm just narrowing the framework and context for/from the idea capital punishment.

The object of war is not to kill people, it is a result, the object of an execution is.

As you know by now, I do not favor one morality over another, because it is so subjective. The law (and all its shortcomings) is nevertheless the current method for determining guilt and punishment. It need not be discontinuous just because the punishment is death.

That is the basis of our disagreement when it comes to taking life.

Correct...the civilized world has also decided that women can abort viable fetuses.

True and I have some problems with that as well.

[Wilber]

Errr...yes "we" did...convicted Japanese "war criminals" were so executed after the war.

We did not execute prisoners. We did execute war criminals, something that does not happen today. Canada still had capital punishment at the time.

That would pose a jurisdiction problem.

It wasn't a serious proposal, just pointing out an inconsistency in our approach to those who do not abide by the same code of behaviour as we expect from ourselves.

[dre]

The object of war is not to kill people, it is a result, the object of an execution is.

That is the basis of our disagreement when it comes to taking life.

True and I have some problems with that as well.

Correct...the civilized world has also decided that women can abort viable fetuses.

No... nature decided that women can abort viable fetuses. The civilized world just decided that womb-goons werent allowed use physical/political force to stop her.

[bush_cheney2004]

The object of war is not to kill people, it is a result, the object of an execution is.

Sorry, but we disagree on that point entirely. One of the principle objectives of war is to engage and kill the enemy, destroy his/her means to resist, and dominate the theatre for military, economic, and political advantage.

That is the basis of our disagreement when it comes to taking life.

I don't think so...if the law were to repeal capital punishment, I would respect the decision just the same. Where we disagree is the unbalanced value you place on the life of a convicted prisoner over the lives of others subject to the same lethal risk(s).

True and I have some problems with that as well.

OK...logically then, to be consistent, you would not support unrestricted abortion laws.

[Saipan]

We did not execute prisoners. We did execute war criminals, something that does not happen today. Canada still had capital punishment at the time.

Now it's done so it looks like natural death.

Take Milosovic for example.

[Wilber]

Sorry, but we disagree on that point entirely. One of the principle objectives of war is to engage and kill the enemy, destroy his/her means to resist, and dominate the theatre for military, economic, and political advantage.

It is the means, not the object unless the object is genocide. That said, all too often the means is the only real result. Wars unfortunately seem necessary on rare occasions, far less often than they actualy occur.

I don't think so...if the law were to repeal capital punishment, I would respect the decision just the same. Where we disagree is the unbalanced value you place on the life of a convicted prisoner over the lives of others subject to the same lethal risk(s).

We all abide by laws we don't agree with, that doesn't mean we respect them. If you had that attitude in 1776, you would still be a colony. I'm not the one with an unbalanced view of human life, you are the one putting different values on it, you either respect life or you don't.

OK...logically then, to be consistent, you would not support unrestricted abortion laws.

I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. Only because I see it as the least worst option.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is the means, not the object unless the object is genocide. That said, all too often the means is the only real result. Wars unfortunately seem necessary on rare occasions, far less often than they actualy occur.

Like capital punishment, war is an extreme measure used when other methods have failed. War too resides on a continuum of human escalation.

We all abide by laws we don't agree with, that doesn't mean we respect them. If you had that attitude in 1776, you would still be a colony. I'm not the one with an unbalanced view of human life, you are the one putting different values on it, you either respect life or you don't.

But you can't have it both ways....which is why I challenge other aspects for the "sanctity of life" that are readily dismissed under certain circumstances. I can agree with you that there may be a case made against state sponsored executions in a very narrow legal context, but it would not be based on the "value" of life, which we already agree is compromised in several other (legal) ways.

I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. Only because I see it as the least worst option.

The same can be said for capital punishment. Think of it as retroactive abortion!

[Wilber]

Like capital punishment, war is an extreme measure used when other methods have failed. War too resides on a continuum of human escalation.

But you can't have it both ways....which is why I challenge other aspects for the "sanctity of life" that are readily dismissed under certain circumstances. I can agree with you that there may be a case made against state sponsored executions in a very narrow legal context, but it would not be based on the "value" of life, which we already agree is compromised in several other (legal) ways.

The same can be said for capital punishment. Think of it as retroactive abortion!

Capital punishment is an option that exists for no other reason than to give some people some sort of feeling that "justice" has somehow been served by taking another life. In reality it just brings them closer to the killer. If we believe in a life for a life we should have no problem with gang wars. The only guilty party would be the one committing the first murder. What is the difference other than legality?

[Wilber]

The same can be said for capital punishment. Think of it as retroactive abortion!

Not really unless you are in favour of government mandated abortions.